![]() |
The Blue-Spotted Australian Mist |
Final fling for limerick competition. The competition to compose a suitable limerick, for which the prize is complimentary registration and a free lunch at next Wednesday's IP Round-Up conference for people who don't like patents, closes on Sunday night. Many entries have been received, ranging from the witty to the woeful, and from people who have clung manically to the rules for writing limericks to those who consider that they only apply to other contestants. If you've not yet sent in your entry, don't leave it till it's too late!
![]() |
Fordham: if you're seriously interested in having IP fun |
Better late than never! Merpel most embarrassed to confess that she has only just noticed this Consultation from the UK Intellectual Property Office, at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-provisions-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-of-the-cdpa, which was apparently published on 15 September 2014 and which -- horror of horrors -- closes on 27 October 2014 (ie this coming Monday, so you have only the weekend to respond). The consultation concerns the repeal of section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). This section currently provides that, where an artistic work is exploited industrially (ie large numbers of copies are made) the copyright period is reduced to 25 years. This is now considered in breach of EU obligations, and so will be repealed (by a provision of the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which has however yet to come into force). There has already been a consultation last year at (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-provisions-for-repeal-of-section-52-of-the-cdpa-1988 [this is a confusingly similar URL but refers to a completely different consultation] on the principle of the repeal. The question now is mainly one of how long the transitional period should be. The NIPC blog has a good explanation of the background to all of this. Merpel is grateful to ACID, whose website is launching a questionnaire of its own and which was the source of the alert for this topic. However, she is concerned that the ACID survey asks the question in a somewhat different manner:
Merpel is concerned that the scope of the issue is much wider, and considerably more nuanced, than this. The IPO Consultation is not addressed at “brands” and has nothing to do with whether a design is “iconic”. What's more, the repeal of section 52 will affect all artistic copyright, including that relating to 2D works, and is not (as the ACID website seems to imply) restricted to pre-1989 3D designs for furniture and the like. Be that as it may, if you wish to respond to the ACID survey, the deadline is TODAY.“Calling All ACID Members. Do you admire and support iconic designers and the integrity of design heritage? How long should those who have built their business models on the sale of unlicensed artistic works be given to adapt their business models following the change of law to protect these iconic brands and their official licensors?”.
Dinner with Dinusha? A 3D treat. From Katfriend Dinusha Mendis comes news of "3D Printing: A Selection of Stakeholder Perspectives", a sweet little event that is coming up at Bournemouth University's Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) on Friday 7 November. Details of this event are here; registration is here. The event is free to attend, but you have to pay for your optional dinner.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99ddf/99ddfaf3638cb433138f015b931a937c75ba9f1a" alt="Friday fantasies"
"What's more, the repeal of section 52 will affect all artistic copyright, including that relating to 2D works."
ReplyDeleteYes, in principle, but in practice most 2D works are already excluded from the effects of s.52 by article 3 of the Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles)(No. 2) Order 1989, specifically:
"printed matter primarily of a literary or artistic character, including book jackets, calendars, certificates, coupons, dress-making patterns, greetings cards, labels, leaflets, maps, plans, playing cards, postcards, stamps, trade advertisements, trade forms and cards, transfers and similar articles."
Does anyone have any good examples of 2D works that will in fact be affected by the change?
Most 3D works are protected by design right, not copyright, so are also unaffected by the change in the law. The main category of 3D works that are protected by copyright is "works of artistic craftsmanship", which is why furniture is almost universally used as the example.
Non-printed e.g. woven or embroidered patterns, tartans, engraved patterns?
ReplyDeletePrinted matter not primarily of a literary or artistic character e.g. functional patterns such as camouflage?
Dear Jeremy:
ReplyDeleteThere is this marvelous new thing called the internet that would enable the webcasting and archiving of your lecture in Oz. I think that they may even have already heard about it down there.
Perhaps this will be done so that fanciers of felicitous feline fillips of IP philosophy can follow Merpel's peripatetic paw steps.
"Break a leg" as they say in show biz - indeed three times, once for each venue.
Best regards,
Uncle Wiggily